Continuation The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 27

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

I have not been able to find it anywhere else, either. So perhaps it was just a rumor. However, if one did not already know the outcome of the trial, when reading his motivation report, his description of the interrogation appears to be a case for acquittal rather than conviction.

One speculation is that he did not want to convict on the calunnia but felt he had to give "a bone" to the baying hounds of the mob and judiciary. I believe he understood the atmosphere at the time which later proved to be true when one considers his subsequent treatment by his fellow judges. Perhaps he felt that the calunnia would be overturned on appeal for being illogical considering the case he had presented for it which, as I said, seemed far more supporting of acquittal than conviction. He also knew they would be free immediately having served the time for the calunnia already.

Hellmann has made it very clear that he believes AK and RS to be factually innocent, not merely BARD innocent.

Please note that this is all speculation and I am not stating any of this as fact as some PGP so commonly do.

In one sentence you have managed to tell four "alternate truths" with no evidence supporting any of them. Going for a record?

This in a nutshell is why I hate this forum. We're not supposed to address the poster yet here is a typical post of a PGP. Four claims invented out of whole cloth. But the good thing is is the posts on this forum are irrelevant.

__________________“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Without a doubt, certainly, most likely, probably and in fact, Mario Spezi was the Monster of Florence. The evidence is overwhelming. Which is why he and an American journalist, Preston, planted a gun in order to deflect attention from Spezi. A two-bit hack and unsuccessful American writer would need to do that in order to finally get a best-seller. Oh, wait.....I see a problem with this.

As has been discussed, the execution of ECHR judgments is supervised by the Committee of Ministers (CoM); both ECHR and CoM are organizations within the Council of Europe (CoE). The CoE member states, including Italy, have solemnly pledged in a binding treaty, the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention), to follow the final judgments of the ECHR.

Italy revised its Constitution, in particular Article 111, in 1999, to better conform to the requirements of the Convention. It is possible that some judges in Italy during the relevant period of the Knox - Sollecito case had not fully understood how the revised Italian Constitution, and the new or revised laws enacted to conform to it, should be implemented. That would be one explanation for the arbitrary and illegal procedures followed by the Massei, Chieffi CSC panel and Nencini tribunals.

Here is an extract from the CoM report* on the revision of the Italian Constitution and some laws to meet a judgment of the ECHR:

"As regards the general measures, the government recalls that, subsequent to the violation in this case, important measures have been adopted by Italy with a view to ensuring the fairness of criminal proceedings in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention.

Constitutional reform of 1999

Article 111 of the Italian Constitution, as modified in November 1999, gave Constitutional rank to a number of requirements contained in Article 6 of the Convention and, in its new wording, it provides in particular that:

“1. Jurisdiction shall be exercised through fair proceedings, conducted in accordance with the law.

2. All proceedings shall be conducted in compliance with the principles of adversarial process and equality of arms before a neutral and impartial court. The right to be tried within a reasonable time shall be guaranteed by law.

3. In criminal proceedings, the law shall guarantee that the person accused of an offence is informed promptly and in confidence of the nature and grounds of the charge against him; that he shall have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; that he shall be given an opportunity before the court to examine or to have examined anyone giving evidence against him, to obtain the attendance and examination of any defence witnesses on the same conditions as witnesses called by the prosecution and to obtain the production of any other evidence in his favour; and that he will have the assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used at the trial.

4. The principle of adversarial process shall be observed during criminal proceedings with regard to the examination of evidence. The guilt of an accused cannot be established on the basis of statements made by a person who has freely and willfully eluded examination by the accused or his lawyer.

5. Rules shall be made governing the circumstances in which adversarial examination of the evidence is to be dispensed with, either because the accused has consented or because there is due evidence that such examination is objectively impossible or that there has been unlawful conduct.”

Legislative reform of 2001

A law implementing the new constitutional provision was adopted by Parliament in 2001 (Law No. 63 of 1/03/2001), which amended inter alia Article 513 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, application of which was at the basis of the violation found in this case.

According to the law now in force, pre-trial statements made by a person who subsequently avails himself of his right to remain silent in the debate, may be read and used by the judge only if all the interested parties consent to it unless the judge establishes that the refusal to be cross-questioned in the proceedings is the result of bribery or threats.

This rule applies not only to statements made in the same proceedings but also to those made in other proceedings and, in this last case, the statements may not even be read without the consent of the accused person concerned. ...."
_____

Violations of the Italian law on use of statements made by those refusing to be cross-examined, and use of such uncross-examined statements from an earlier trial, were seen in the Knox - Sollecito trials and were criticized in the Marasca CSC panel motivation report, which finally and definitively acquitted Knox and Sollecito.

I rarely look at this tediously interminable thread, but I wonder this: Is this matter legally over? Is Amanda facing any legal liability, criminal or civil? Could she, if she wanted, join a group tour to Rome and Venice and be sure she would get home? If it's over, what is the nature of the continuing disputes?

I rarely look at this tediously interminable thread, but I wonder this: Is this matter legally over? Is Amanda facing any legal liability, criminal or civil? Could she, if she wanted, join a group tour to Rome and Venice and be sure she would get home? If it's over, what is the nature of the continuing disputes?

Not quite. But close.

No Amanda does not face any criminal liability. I believe there is still an outstanding legal judgment against her for callunia which she is still challenging. There is an outstanding case at the European Court for Human Rights that we believe will eliminate that judgment and allow Amanda to seek compensation for wrongful incarceration.

__________________“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

I rarely look at this tediously interminable thread, but I wonder this: Is this matter legally over? Is Amanda facing any legal liability, criminal or civil? Could she, if she wanted, join a group tour to Rome and Venice and be sure she would get home? If it's over, what is the nature of the continuing disputes?

These points are really interesting.

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have been finally and definitively acquitted of the murder/rape of Meredith Kercher by the March, 2015 verdict of the Supreme Court of Cassation of Italy. According to Italian law, they can face no other legal action, criminal or civil, regarding the matters for which they have been acquitted.

Amanda Knox was finally convicted of the crime of calunnia (false accusation) against Patrick Lumumba by the March, 2013 verdict of the Supreme Court of Cassation. However, convictions in Italy are not necessarily definitive, and may be retried by an Italian revision court (a court of appeal) under certain conditions. One such condition, according to Italian law (a judgment of the Italian Supreme Constitutional Court) is a final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that the conviction was the result of an unfair trial, or was otherwise unfair, and that the legal proceedings must be reopened at the request of the convicted person. The ECHR is an international court that hears claims of violations of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention), a treaty to which Italy is a charter signatory. Italy is obligated to follow the terms of the Convention under international and Italian law.

Amanda Knox lodged an application with the ECHR in November, 2013 (within the deadline, which is based on the date of delivery of the motivation report, and not the short-form verdict) claiming that Italy violated her rights under the Convention. The case was communicated to Italy by the ECHR in April, 2015, to allow Italy to prepare a defense, if it so chooses. The ECHR considers this case a "noteworthy pending case", meaning it considers the claims and potential outcome of significance for human rights in the Council of Europe states (that is, all the states that are signatories of the European Convention of Human Rights). A date for the publication of the ECHR judgment has not been announced; the ECHR has tens of thousands of pending cases before it, and it can be quite slow in reaching judgments.

There have also been some satellite cases in Italy related to the main Knox - Sollecito trials. These include, but are not limited to:

1. A case accusing Amanda Knox of false accusation against the police, regarding her statements in court, at her trial, about their behavior toward her during the Nov. 5-6, 2007 interrogation. Knox was finally acquitted on these charges in January, 2016.

2. A case accusing Raffaele Sollecito of criminal defamation against the police, regarding certain statements he had published in a book (which was not publicly available in Italy) he co-authored with Andrew Gumbel. Sollecito and Gumbel were acquitted in October, 2017 on these charges. Prosecutor Mignini had joined this case with a civil lawsuit, as allowed and rather usual in Italian cases. Mignini has withdrawn his suit. I suspect this will be a final acquittal, but I don't believe the time limit for an appeal by the prosecution has run out (I think it will by the end of December, 2017), and I am not sure when the statute of limitations will expire on the charges.

3. There were some additional cases, such as a defamation suit against Knox's parents by Mignini. I am not sure what has happened to those; I suspect the case against Knox's parents and any other such cases have been allowed to expire. But I'm not sure of that.

4. The request by Sollecito for compensation on account of unjust detention was recently finally denied by the Supreme Court of Cassation. His lawyers indicated that this will be taken to the ECHR, because the Convention mandates that there be acknowledgment and compensation for unfair detentions.

5. Rudy Guede, the only person convicted of the murder/rape of Kercher, has appealed the first rejection of his request for revision of his conviction. The Supreme Court of Cassation is expected to issue a ruling on this appeal by the end of November, 2017.
____
Regarding that last question: what is the nature of the continuing disputes - I think one should separate the disputes in an online forum from those in the real world.

My interest in the case now rests with the issues of the violations of rights by Italy and how the ECHR will address those issues in its judgment.

I rarely look at this tediously interminable thread, but I wonder this: Is this matter legally over? Is Amanda facing any legal liability, criminal or civil? Could she, if she wanted, join a group tour to Rome and Venice and be sure she would get home? If it's over, what is the nature of the continuing disputes?

One small quibble with this post. Why leave out Raffaele?

Indeed for Raffaele, the answers to those questions are as follows: yes, no. Raffaele lives in Italy and roams the country unfettered.

The continuing "disputes" are as pitched by the remaining (almost exclusively English-language) on-line campaign against the pair - but mainly against Knox. Those disputes would have you believe that the March 2015 acquittals were something less than definitive. They dispute that a Section 530.2 acquittal is somewhat less than a Section 530.1 acquittal.

They dispute the language of the report generated by the final acquittal, claiming that that report puts the pair at the scene, rubbing Meredith's blood from their hands. This, despite the report clearly saying that even if those things were true as alleged by the Nencini court (from 2014), there still was no evidence of the pair in the murder room - begging all sorts of questions. Some life was breathed into their conspiratorializing, because Sollecito was denied compensation for wrongful imprisonment, and the court (including the Supreme Court) which ruled on it basically said it was Raffaele's own fault he'd been imprisoned.

The remaining "disputes" are all the inventions of those who are confirmation biased around a guilt-view, one they believe is unchanged since the original 2009 convictions. The content of their dispute is nearly drawn word for word from Mignini's 2016(?) brief outlining his reasons for claiming defamation at the hands of one of the defence lawyers, who used uncharitable language in describing Mignini in a newspiece. (Mignini started defamation proceedings against the The West Seattle Herald - which was dropped, Amanda's parents - which will probably lapse on a statute of limitations, Amanda herself - which she was acquitted of, and against Raffaele and his ghost-writer Andrew Gumbel - which was thrown out from the criminal court, and Mignini immediately dropped his private civil suit. The defamation claim against Maori is something different. In short, Mignini sued everything that moved. So ask Mignini what this lengthy litany of "disputes" is supposed to be.)

Mignini outlines in that brief that to understand Maori's alleged defamation, one must understand how the 2015 Supreme Court 5th Chambers "illegally" acquitted the pair. Mignini then outlines points from the original prosecution which eventually, obviously, failed - but which remain the "continuing disputes" echoed almost word-for-word by the remaining on-line, English-language guilters.

__________________In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Indeed for Raffaele, the answers to those questions are as follows: yes, no. Raffaele lives in Italy and roams the country unfettered.

The continuing "disputes" are as pitched by the remaining (almost exclusively English-language) on-line campaign against the pair - but mainly against Knox. Those disputes would have you believe that the March 2015 acquittals were something less than definitive. They dispute that a Section 530.2 acquittal is somewhat less than a Section 530.1 acquittal.

They dispute the language of the report generated by the final acquittal, claiming that that report puts the pair at the scene, rubbing Meredith's blood from their hands. This, despite the report clearly saying that even if those things were true as alleged by the Nencini court (from 2014), there still was no evidence of the pair in the murder room - begging all sorts of questions. Some life was breathed into their conspiratorializing, because Sollecito was denied compensation for wrongful imprisonment, and the court (including the Supreme Court) which ruled on it basically said it was Raffaele's own fault he'd been imprisoned.

The remaining "disputes" are all the inventions of those who are confirmation biased around a guilt-view, one they believe is unchanged since the original 2009 convictions. The content of their dispute is nearly drawn word for word from Mignini's 2016(?) brief outlining his reasons for claiming defamation at the hands of one of the defence lawyers, who used uncharitable language in describing Mignini in a newspiece. (Mignini started defamation proceedings against the The West Seattle Herald - which was dropped, Amanda's parents - which will probably lapse on a statute of limitations, Amanda herself - which she was acquitted of, and against Raffaele and his ghost-writer Andrew Gumbel - which was thrown out from the criminal court, and Mignini immediately dropped his private civil suit. The defamation claim against Maori is something different. In short, Mignini sued everything that moved. So ask Mignini what this lengthy litany of "disputes" is supposed to be.)

Mignini outlines in that brief that to understand Maori's alleged defamation, one must understand how the 2015 Supreme Court 5th Chambers "illegally" acquitted the pair. Mignini then outlines points from the original prosecution which eventually, obviously, failed - but which remain the "continuing disputes" echoed almost word-for-word by the remaining on-line, English-language guilters.

Perhaps it is true that he is acknowledged that way, but what in the book did he "author"?

Most likely Gumbel gave major assistence Sollecito in writing the text, which is in English. While Sollecito speaks English as a second language, he may not have been confident that he could write a memoir in idiomatic, grammatically flowing English.

Ghost writers are not credited as authors or editors:

"A ghostwriter is a writer who is hired to author literary or journalistic works, speeches or other texts that are officially credited to another person."

To call Gumbel a "ghostwriter" for Sollecito implies that Gumbel was not acknowledged as an author. But Gumbel was acknowledged as an author with Sollecito. And both, with the publisher, were charged in Italy with criminal defamation of the police for statements written in a book not available by sale in Italy to the public in Italy. Italians seeking a copy of the book would need to order it from the United States, where it was published. I point out these latter facts because they may be of legal significance.

Most likely Gumbel gave major assistence Sollecito in writing the text, which is in English. While Sollecito speaks English as a second language, he may not have been confident that he could write a memoir in idiomatic, grammatically flowing English.

Ghost writers are not credited as authors or editors:

"A ghostwriter is a writer who is hired to author literary or journalistic works, speeches or other texts that are officially credited to another person."

To call Gumbel a "ghostwriter" for Sollecito implies that Gumbel was not acknowledged as an author. But Gumbel was acknowledged as an author with Sollecito. And both, with the publisher, were charged in Italy with criminal defamation of the police for statements written in a book not available by sale in Italy to the public in Italy. Italians seeking a copy of the book would need to order it from the United States, where it was published. I point out these latter facts because they may be of legal significance.

Aside from the legal significance, however, is there not a better term than "coauthor", in the sense that AG did not really "author" anything?

I feel a Grinder moment coming. God, I miss that guy.

Well, the authors and publisher did not use "translator".

If Sollecito explained or wrote sections in his choice of English what he wanted written, and then Gumbel rephrased it in his choice of English, would that not make Gumbel a co-author?

In contrast, I think usually an editor of a memoir would not usually rephrase an author's words, but instead ask the author questions to encourage clarifications, suggest expanding or contracting sections to maintain flow and interest, and suggest the arrangement of sections for providing interest while maintaining continuity.

"An author is the originator of any written work such as a book or play, and is thus also a writer. More broadly defined, an author is "the person who originated or gave existence to anything" and whose authorship determines responsibility for what was created.

[There are legal aspects to "authorship".] Typically, the first owner of a copyright is the person who created the work i.e. the author. But, what if more than one person created the work? Then, a case of joint authorship can be made provided some criteria are met. ..."

"Andrew Gumbel is a Los Angeles-based journalist and author. He spent six years in Italy, including stints as a foreign correspondent for Reuters and The Independent. His books include the widely acclaimed Oklahoma City: What The Investigation Missed—And Why It Still Matters."

"Andrew Gumbel is an award-winning journalist and former longtime correspondent for British newspapers, such as The Guardian and The Independent, and has been on the scene at a number of international conflicts. His first book, Steal This Vote: Dirty Elections and the Rotten History of Democracy in America, was published to great acclaim in 2005. Gumbel has been writing about the Oklahoma City bombing for over ten years. He was born in England and educated at Oxford University."

WOW! WOW! What total unadulterated nonsense! Crazy lunacy! If most people screw around in their youth why is it you continue to portray Amanda as a globe trotting slut and Meredith as the studious virgin?

As for me, the atheist. I'd like to see mankind move on from bronze age religions and silly false superstitions, not family. I want people to trust their critical thinking skills. Trust in logic and the scientific method not the ideas of people who had NO IDEA what the scientific method is.

BTW, how do you think you create a family? It's called sex. And while I know some people that got married and stopped having sex, I know plenty of married couples who have very healthy sex lives 30 years after tying the knot. My parents for one.

What has this got to do with the thread subject matter?

Massive failure of logic here. Happily married sex or with long-term or short-term partner does NOT equate to indiscriminate promiscuous sex with random strangers, sometime in public places.

It is a clinical fact that one of the criteria of Hare's Diagnostic for psychopathy is:

- Reckless promiscuity.

This does not mean that Hare is:

- unhappily married
- has no sex
- is a Christian/Muslim/Jew/Wiccan/Hindi/Jain/Sikh/Bronze Age Ba'al worshipper

Nor can you tell whether he looks more like George Clooney or Danny de Vito, or if female, would be 'old' or a 'crone'.

Hare's Diagnostic is a scientifically devised diagnostic tool for clinical psychologists and pyschiatrists, which is legally recognised.

Hence all your nonsence about 'I know happily married people who enjoy sex' is more worthy of a newspaper comments page, than a considered debating point.

As for your argument, 'Mez was banging the guy downstairs, therefore she is exactly the same as Amanda Knox who had sex with random cocaine dealers ten years older than her in a public train toilet, together with no end of sex with married men' [see her actual bragging about this in her semi porno-WTBH], it is clearly rubbish. Mez was in a normal relationship. Knox was on a campaign to have lots of sex wherever she could, as stated in her own book.

She clearly fulfills one of the Diagnostics for psychopathy. Another criteria fullfilled is her glib capacity for compulsive lying.

Criminal behaviour is another. She remains in perpetuity a convicted felon of a serious crime.

Would be more interesting for you to address the John Douglas stuff you tried to peddle though.

Thanks.

Amanda Knox had just US$4,500 to live on. There is no way she was there for longer than a few months.

As for John Douglas, he is an unabashed supporter of rightly convicted murderers such as Steven Avery, the WM3 and the Kercher killers (the plural is a legal fact), using the influence of his name to try to get them off the hook from his armchair.

Where is Madison Paxton now? Take a look at her FB page Planigale provided a link to and where she is still supporting Amanda and where Amanda and Raffaele post. So much for your innuendo.

So now you speak for all young Brits? It doesn't matter why the British girls didn't care for Amanda. Has it ever entered your mind that maybe Amanda didn't care to hang around with them? She was friends with Meredith. As I said, Amanda wasn't interested in chumming around with a bunch of English speakers. She was making her own Italian speaking friends.

"Amanda was on a three-month bumming around Europe tour for sex and drugs and rock and roll"

Your ignorance is apparent once more. Her plan was to improve her Italian by studying in Perugia for nine months, then to attend a WSU sponsored literary program in Rome in June.
How easily you condemn Amanda for "sex, drugs, and rock and roll" when Meredith was having sex, smoking pot, drinking, and partying as well. Such blatant hypocrisy.

Knox says herself in her book she was there to have a sexual adventure.

You are wrong. Madison Paxton has completely cut off Knox from her life. I would guess Knox' lawyers have paid Paxton a gagging clause settlement, as too with Colin Sutherland (the fake fiancé).

Paxton moved to Perugia to support someone she thought was a friend, tirelessy fed the media pro-Knox propaganda material, including the notorious 'Amanda was Railroaded' ROLLING STONE article by Nathaniel Rich, who lapped the rubbish up as he was infatuated with Paxton.

So, how did Knox thank her good friend? No sooner was she out of prison than she turned her back on her.

No wonder Paxton wants nothing ever to do with unfeeling, unempathic, Knox again.

"We see this in John Douglas' own account"? Another "fact" pulled straight from your ...well, we all know where. Provide evidence...if you can.

You really can't see just how ludicrous your "gun for hire" nonsense is, can you? You really think that Douglas and Gill, two very highly respected men in their fields who spent a lifetime earning that respect, would become "guns for hire" for someone they did not know and had no connection to? You are so deep into your fantasy world that you actually believe that nonsense rather than accept that they came to the conclusions they did based on their professional experience and knowledge.

"No evidence, just John Douglas' say-so."

Um, no. John Douglas' conclusions are based on years as an FBI profiler. Remember that it was the carabinieri themselves who came to him regarding the Monster of Florence profile.

"When we further note his best chum is the bitter Doug Preston"
No, "we" don't note any such thing. Once again you claim that Preston and Douglas are "chums" with no evidence whatsoever.

"...it all beomes clear his support for Knox is merely based on a PR campaign against Mignini, because a two-bit pulp fiction writer - Preston - got booted out of Italy for trying to obstruct justice in the MOF case"

LOL! Preston has several best sellers on the LA Times and NY Times Lists and a second book being made into a movie. There's a "two bit" fiction writer around, but it sure isn't Preston! Jealousy is not a becoming trait.

Exactly what did Preston do that was "obstructing justice"? Or do you honestly believe that Spezi was the MofF and that he and Preston planted a gun to mislead the police? Remember, every single one of the numerous charges ever levelled against Spezi by Mignini was throw out. There was a vendetta, all right...but it wasn't by Douglas, Spezi, or Preston.

When Douglas was an FBI-profiler, he worked on the field on the front line. He saw the evidence and crime scene first hand.

He's long retired. Now he sits in his bath chair, spouting off his pontifications from a perspective of 'defence gun for hire', using his brand to sponsor phony innocence projects.

Please preserve us from people who just make things up continually. Back to the old "Amanda claimed to have invented sex" nonsense again I see. No matter how many times you are asked to provide evidence of this, you never, ever do. It doesn't take a Mensa member to figure out why that is.

So sex stops after marriage, does it? Happily, that hasn't been my experience after 35 years of marriage. But maybe for some, it does stop.

Edited by Agatha:

Edited for rule 12

By the way, being an atheist has absolutely nothing to do with love of family. No doubt. Or do you think only believers love their families?

What does your sex life have to do with the topic of the thread? I made an old gag about no sex after marriage. LOL.

As for your claim about family, you seem to have a belief the civilisation you were born into was there by pure magic, so you naively want to overthrow it all and go back to living like animals in the field, with no-one knowing who their family is, or perhaps a Soviet-style mass nursery, with everybody practising 'free love' and polyamory.

Truth is, people have a good family life because of solid foundations built up through the ages by advanced Homo sapiens. Being happily married 35 years is hardly the height of the Rebellion of the Atheists and sexual revolution.

So, you and Knox are atheists who believe in free love (even if you by your own account don't practice what you preach) and somehow anyone who points out the social consequences of reckless promiscuity is the person who is the hypocrite, by your bizarre logic.

In case I have not made myself clear, promiscuous behaviour as practised by Knox as of the time of the crime, is a diagnostic criteria of psychopathy. Your claim that her behaviour is normal is pure logical fallacy.

It is not a moral judgement. The fact is, Knox by her reckless disregard for the welfare of others, put Mez into an extremely vulnerable and dangerous position in her own bedroom (and who else had the key and locked in her body, but Knox herself?) by bringing home guys off the street in a state of drugged derangement, armed with knives and expecting to party with Knox' own roommates, who Knox introduces Mez to and expects her to reciprocate their unwelcome sexual harassment. (And we know Raff's DNA is strongly present on the victim's underwear, together with bloody footprints in the hall and bathroom.)

To claim that Knox is psychologically healthy in light of the fact of such an atrocious crime and to try to make light of it as 'normal marital sex' is a dreadful and disgraceful argument.

Here's a little puzzle suggested by the questions of a poster on another forum.

Did the Nencini appeal court violate Italian procedural laws, CPP Articles 648 and 649, by provisionally convicting Knox and Sollecito on the original Charge D, that is, of the theft of 300 euros, 2 credit cards, and 2 cell phones from Kercher?

Examination of available court records make it clear that the Nencini court did violate those procedural laws.

Charge D alleged the theft, by Knox and Sollecito, of 300 euros, two credit cards, and two cell phones from Kercher.

Massei indeed acquitted Knox and Sollecito of part of Charge D (the theft of 300 euros and two credit cards) on the specification "because the fact [act of the crime] had not occurred" ("perche il fatto non sussiste"), under CPP Article 530 (the paragraph not being referenced, for those interested in that alleged controversy.)

However, Massei convicted them of the "residual" part of Charge D, the theft of two cell phones.

An appeal of the Massei verdict and sentence by the prosecution is available on www.amandaknoxcase.com. This appeal, by Mignini and Comodi, dated 13 April 2010, is available in Italian and English translation. There is no mention of the Charge D verdict at all in that appeal. The entire appeal is devoted to arguing that there should have been no extenuating circumstances granted to Knox and Sollecito by the Massei court in their sentence, and thus the sentence should have been increased. This suggests that the revision of Charge D to theft of the telephones only was finalized by the time the Hellmann court heard the appeal.

Only the residual part of Charge D appears at the beginning of the Hellmann motivation report, that is, the theft of two cell phones. The theft of the 300 euros and the two credit cards are intentionally omitted (the word "OMISSIS" [= omission, deletion] is substituted for those items). Hellmann acquitted on this revised Charge D with the specification "because the accused had not committed the act". Hellmann did not discuss the theft of the money or credit cards in the motivation report. These are certain indications that there was no prosecution appeal relating to Massei's acquittal for these two elements of Charge D.

Now the Chieffi verdict quashed all the Hellmann acquittals, including the acquittal for Charge D, only maintaining the conviction of Knox on Charge F, "simple" [rather than aggravated] calunnia against Lumumba. As far as I can tell from a brief review of each page of the Chieffi CSC panel motivation report, nowhere in the report are the charges written out. I am unsure whether the Chieffi verdict reinstated Charge D only for the theft of the two cell phones or whether it reinstated it for the full Charge D as it appeared in Massei. The CSC would not have the authority to reinstate the final and definitive acquittals on the two elements of Charge D, because it had become final and definitive due to the failure of the prosecution to timely appeal.

For the Nencini verdict, the motivation report repeats all the charges, including Charge D, as they first appeared in the Massei report, so that Charge D includes the theft of 300 euros, two credit cards, and two cell phones. This inclusion was a violation of Italian procedural law CPP Article 648.

The Nencini verdict goes on to convict Knox and Sollecito of all the original elements of Charge D. This was therefore a violation of Italian procedural law CPP Article 649.

At any rate, the final, definitive verdict of the Marasca CSC panel acquits Knox and Sollecito on all charges including Charge D, except Charge B, carrying a knife, which is dismissed as past the statute of limitations, and thus in effect an acquittal, while reaffirming the conviction of Knox on Charge F, but only for simple calunnia with the Hellmann court's sentence (Nencini had convicted her of aggravated calunnia with an increased sentence). The Marasca motivation report lists Charge D as including the theft of 300 euros, two credit cards, and two cell phones. I am relatively confident that even if there had been a violation of Italian procedural law in listing the full original Charge D in Nencini, Marasca would likewise list it that way to achieve legal certainty. This would be consistent, in part, with the application of CPP Article 649, paragraph 2, which provides that a judge recognizing a case of double jeopardy must immediately dismiss or acquit that case. Marasca, however, does not fulfill the other obligation of CPP Article 649.2, which is to specify the incident of double jeopardy in the motivation report.

If it did, then the defence should have lodged an appeal against the decision within the statutory time frame.

On Nov. 11, for the 10th anniversary of MK's murder, Mignini appeared as a guest speaker at a public discussion for a book titled "Reperto 36" by Luca and Alvaro Fiorucci. This book, published in 2015, is about the MK case from a judicial perspective. It would have been the perfect opportunity for Mignini to reveal the "apology" TJMK alleges RS and Gumbel have to make to him regarding "Honor 'Bound". But it didn't. Hmmmm......

Gumbel and Sollecito have delayed their written 'apology' and retraction.

If they do not comply with the court order within the stated period of time, then Mignini has recourse to bring the case back to court.

IIRC, Mignini's first involvement with the MoF case was when he began looking into Narducci's death in 2001. If Douglas provided a profile of the killer in 1989 how could it possibly have been a deliberate contradiction of Mignini?

OK, fair enough. However, Douglas was the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. Mignini was on the frontline of the case, at the crime scenes, consulting directly with the detectives charged with investigating the case.

His profiling of the perpetrators is bound to be more educated and accurate than some retired FBI-agent lounging on his sunbed.

Don't screw with the international Masonic/US Media supertanker. If they can pay off Douglas, Moore, Hendry, Kassin, Dr. Gill, and all the leading luminaries in their respective fields - as well as cow every other expert who has refused to come forward to support not-a-doctor Stefanoni....

.... indeed, even get to the two experts who did say something nice about Stefanoni at trial, while at the same time slipping into their testimony such acknowledgments that Stefanoni had not followed international protocols (did I say that that had been the admission of those who had said nice things about Stefanoni?).....

It just shows the level of the conspiracy that led to Claudio Hellmann driving around expensive sportscars.

Buying off one of the Italian Supreme Court Chambers does not come cheap. Neither does buying off John Douglas, who had spoken out against Giuliano Mignini, 12 years before even hearing about him! As you say, TruthCalls, Douglas is that good, and it is only the Masons and US Media who have that kind of money to pervert the top.

I have not been able to find it anywhere else, either. So perhaps it was just a rumor. However, if one did not already know the outcome of the trial, when reading his motivation report, his description of the interrogation appears to be a case for acquittal rather than conviction.

One speculation is that he did not want to convict on the calunnia but felt he had to give "a bone" to the baying hounds of the mob and judiciary. I believe he understood the atmosphere at the time which later proved to be true when one considers his subsequent treatment by his fellow judges. Perhaps he felt that the calunnia would be overturned on appeal for being illogical considering the case he had presented for it which, as I said, seemed far more supporting of acquittal than conviction. He also knew they would be free immediately having served the time for the calunnia already.

Hellmann has made it very clear that he believes AK and RS to be factually innocent, not merely BARD innocent.

Please note that this is all speculation and I am not stating any of this as fact as some PGP so commonly do.

I rarely look at this tediously interminable thread, but I wonder this: Is this matter legally over? Is Amanda facing any legal liability, criminal or civil? Could she, if she wanted, join a group tour to Rome and Venice and be sure she would get home? If it's over, what is the nature of the continuing disputes?

Raff has filed suits against twelve court officials, four of them judges, I believe, in Verona.

OK, fair enough. However, Douglas was the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. Mignini was on the frontline of the case, at the crime scenes, consulting directly with the detectives charged with investigating the case.

His profiling of the perpetrators is bound to be more educated and accurate than some retired FBI-agent lounging on his sunbed.

Errrr, sorry....WHAT?! Mignini, a provincial Italian magistrate who has probably worked on no more than a handful of complex murder investigations in his whole career, who has advanced palpably ludicrous religion-driven theories on the two complex murder cases for which he's most (in)famous, and who readily admits to seeing himself in the mould of (entirely fictional) detective Sherlock Holmes....... is "bound to be more educated and accurate" in his profiling of the Kercher murder than the man who effectively fathered the whole area of criminal profiling?

Knox says herself in her book she was there to have a sexual adventure.

You are wrong. Madison Paxton has completely cut off Knox from her life. I would guess Knox' lawyers have paid Paxton a gagging clause settlement, as too with Colin Sutherland (the fake fiancé).

Paxton moved to Perugia to support someone she thought was a friend, tirelessy fed the media pro-Knox propaganda material, including the notorious 'Amanda was Railroaded' ROLLING STONE article by Nathaniel Rich, who lapped the rubbish up as he was infatuated with Paxton.

So, how did Knox thank her good friend? No sooner was she out of prison than she turned her back on her.

No wonder Paxton wants nothing ever to do with unfeeling, unempathic, Knox again.

The weird thing is, none of this is remotely true or supported by evidence.

Massive failure of logic here. Happily married sex or with long-term or short-term partner does NOT equate to indiscriminate promiscuous sex with random strangers, sometime in public places.

Who had "promiscuous sex with random strangers, sometime (sic) in public places"? There's no evidence that this applies to Knox, for example (to whom I am guessing you were referring here....?).

Quote:

It is a clinical fact that one of the criteria of Hare's Diagnostic for psychopathy is:

- Reckless promiscuity.

Hare's Diagnostic is a scientifically devised diagnostic tool for clinical psychologists and pyschiatrists, which is legally recognised.

Yes, it is. So do you think that each and every one of the (literally) millions of students and younger people who hook up in clubs/bars across the world every weekend and end up having one night stands fulfil the Hare criterion for "reckless promiscuity" and are thus on the road to being diagnosable psychopaths? Or is more to do with a strange form of puritanism?

Quote:

As for your argument, 'Mez was banging the guy downstairs, therefore she is exactly the same as Amanda Knox who had sex with random cocaine dealers ten years older than her in a public train toilet,

Knox actually writes that she and this man whom she met on the train actually ended up in his hotel room "fooling around" but not actually having sex. Do you have reliable evidence a) whether or not this man being a "cocaine dealer" had any bearing whatsoever upon him meeting Knox and her sister, and upon Knox subsequently getting off with him, or b) Knox had sex with this man in a public train toilet (which is something of an oxymoron, by the way....)?

Quote:

together with no end of sex with married men' [see her actual bragging about this in her semi porno-WTBH],

Really? Point me to those quotes, please. And your use of the term "semi-porno" for Knox's memoir is rather telling.

Quote:

it is clearly rubbish. Mez was in a normal relationship. Knox was on a campaign to have lots of sex wherever she could, as stated in her own book.

Point me to the quote where Knox states (or implies) that she was "on a campaign to have lots of sex wherever she could", please.

Quote:

She clearly fulfills one of the Diagnostics for psychopathy. Another criteria fullfilled is her glib capacity for compulsive lying.

Ah well, this is something of a circular reference: one can only claim that this other "criteria criterion (is) fullfilled fulfilled" if one accepts the grounds for Knox's criminal slander conviction. We'll see what the ECHR has to say about all that, eh?

Quote:

Criminal behaviour is another. She remains in perpetuity a convicted felon of a serious crime.

Likewise, this is the same circular reference. And likewise, let's see what the ECHR has to say about it (and what it requires Italy to do by way of restitution and remedy).

Massive failure of logic here. Happily married sex or with long-term or short-term partner does NOT equate to indiscriminate promiscuous sex with random strangers, sometime in public places.

It is a clinical fact that one of the criteria of Hare's Diagnostic for psychopathy is:

- Reckless promiscuity.

This does not mean that Hare is:

- unhappily married
- has no sex
- is a Christian/Muslim/Jew/Wiccan/Hindi/Jain/Sikh/Bronze Age Ba'al worshipper

Nor can you tell whether he looks more like George Clooney or Danny de Vito, or if female, would be 'old' or a 'crone'.

Hare's Diagnostic is a scientifically devised diagnostic tool for clinical psychologists and pyschiatrists, which is legally recognised.

Hence all your nonsence about 'I know happily married people who enjoy sex' is more worthy of a newspaper comments page, than a considered debating point.

As for your argument, 'Mez was banging the guy downstairs, therefore she is exactly the same as Amanda Knox who had sex with random cocaine dealers ten years older than her in a public train toilet, together with no end of sex with married men' [see her actual bragging about this in her semi porno-WTBH], it is clearly rubbish. Mez was in a normal relationship. Knox was on a campaign to have lots of sex wherever she could, as stated in her own book.

She clearly fulfills one of the Diagnostics for psychopathy. Another criteria fullfilled is her glib capacity for compulsive lying.

Criminal behaviour is another. She remains in perpetuity a convicted felon of a serious crime.

Oh for mercy's sake there was no "sex on a train".

Yet this sluttified worldview conveniently diverts from Mignini's own recent humiliation when his defamation claim against RS and AG was thrown out of court.

Or NvdL being accused of plagiarism by all sides. May as well recycle long-since debunked claims and then make up stuff about "psychopathology" which were never once mentioned in 5 trials....

__________________In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.